While I don't agree with this guys interpretation of earths geology, I am also not afraid of opposing viewpoints. Let the guy do his study. There is clearly plenty of information to refute his theory.

I think this has been covered several times already (Including by me - not to mention the actual article) but what he wants to do will damage a national park. There are rules in place to weigh the scientific value of a proposal like this against the damage it will cause. This proposal failed that test. Again... are we supposed to just let anyone do anything to a sensitive nationally owned site because you are not afraid of the opposing viewpoint? Again... this has nothing to do with opposing viewpoint and everything to do with his proposal not having scientific merit.

Damage to a national park? Come on. It's not like there's thousands of kooks lined up trying to get these permits are there? If I'm wrong, let me know.

And why, in a case like this, is it important to swat down a guy with fringe ideas. He has scientific training. He has committed to publishing his results. I fail to see how the stakes here are so high that it's best to cut off access to these rocks just because of his fringe ideas. It seems like it is all because of the particular group he is associated with and the particular ideas he advances. If you feel it doesn't have scientific merit, fine. Seems like in this case, it would be much better to let him do his thing and let his bad science be put out there for the public to be able to see for themselves rather than take a course that may feed the notion that the scientific community is closed off to ideas outside the mainstream.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for him to call his lawyer on his cell phone proves the Earth is older than a few thousand years.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for him to send emails back and forth to govt officials proves that the Earth is older than a few thousand years.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for nuclear power plants around the world to operate, and obtain uranium from Snelling's own country, prove the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for the X-Ray and CAT Scan machines that at least someone he knows have needed for tests, prove that thr Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

He can believe in whatever religion he wants, but don't lie and call what he is doing "science."

So, how long are these people going to get away with saying Earth is 6000 years old? For as long as I can recall that's the number (seemingly pulled out of a hat), and it hasn't changed with time.

It's a number pulled out of the genealogy record detailed pretty specifically in the bible. From Adam to Jesus is around 4,004 years, then we have about 2,000 years since. I suppose if you wanted to be exact then this year it would be 6,021 maybe, depending on where you set the start of the AD calendar.

And why, in a case like this, is it important to swat down a guy with fringe ideas. He has scientific training. He has committed to publishing his results.

I'm guessing you're new to this whole 'Creationism-debate-tactics' thing.

They are never honest about their actions or commitments. Ever.

Not new. And I very much disagree. There are plenty of creationists out there who inquire into the matter honestly (whether cleverly or not is subject to opinion). Now perhaps of those who apply for permits for these kinds of studies, you might say it is very rare. But I think it counter-productive and dangerous to assume this is the case 100% of the time.

And let's say we are 100% certain in this instance that it is a dishonest undertaking. What harm do you really think is gonna come of it? I just don't see any significant harm - or at least not more than I can see coming from a swat down approach.

And why, in a case like this, is it important to swat down a guy with fringe ideas. He has scientific training. He has committed to publishing his results.

I'm guessing you're new to this whole 'Creationism-debate-tactics' thing.

They are never honest about their actions or commitments. Ever.

Having just re-read your comment, I'm now thinking you were referring to the commitment to publish results--that we can't trust this guy to follow through on that. If there is an objective way to consider that in the review process (i.e. somebody with a history of running afoul of certain ethical rules or whatever), then I can certainly support denying the permit on that basis. But the article doesn't allude to any such thing, and as I mentioned, not good practice to just assume so based on a viewpoint or certain associations.

@ScottThis is the most uninformed article I've ever read on Ars. You comment about "mountains of evidence" supporting old earth and yet cite none.

There are many strong arguments for "old earth" over "new earth", why not employ them here?

It seems that this guy is looking for real evidence to support his theory. Is that not what we would want people to do? Take a scientific approach to support their belief?

As for "mountains of evidence", the Mt St Helen event does clearly demonstrates the fact that a catastrophic event can produce both sedimentary layers and rapid erosion through those layers in a relatively short period of time. These are not alternative facts. This was an event observed by the scientific community and the outcome can be witnessed in person today.

Attempting to scientifically compare these cases is not ridiculous but rather obvious.

Debate is healthy. dismissing those you don't agree with is hardly scientific. This article commits the exact infraction you are accusing Snelling of doing. Declaring something a fact with a preconceived conclusion. The irony is laughable.

[SNIP]It seems that this guy is looking for real evidence to support his theory. Is that not what we would want people to do? Take a scientific approach to support their belief? [SNIP]

You (and Snelling) have the fundamental process of science completely backward.

A responsible, practicing scientist never searches for evidence in support of his or her "belief."

I don't think that's quite accurate either. A scientist may come up with an hypothesis and then go in search of evidence supporting the hypothesis. However, and here's the disconnect with this guy, the scientist must be open to evidence contradicting the hypothesis. The hypothesis must be modified based upon evidence discovered, up to and including discarding the entire thing.

[SNIP]It seems that this guy is looking for real evidence to support his theory. Is that not what we would want people to do? Take a scientific approach to support their belief? [SNIP]

You (and Snelling) have the fundamental process of science completely backward.

A responsible, practicing scientist never searches for evidence in support of his or her "belief."

I don't think that's quite accurate either. A scientist may come up with an hypothesis and then go in search of evidence supporting the hypothesis. However, and here's the disconnect with this guy, the scientist must be open to evidence contradicting the hypothesis. The hypothesis must be modified based upon evidence discovered, up to and including discarding the entire thing.

ObservationHypothesisTesting

In this case, the hypothesis is resting solely on the "observation" that an ancient myth says so.

[SNIP]It seems that this guy is looking for real evidence to support his theory. Is that not what we would want people to do? Take a scientific approach to support their belief? [SNIP]

You (and Snelling) have the fundamental process of science completely backward.

A responsible, practicing scientist never searches for evidence in support of his or her "belief."

I don't think that's quite accurate either. A scientist may come up with an hypothesis and then go in search of evidence supporting the hypothesis. However, and here's the disconnect with this guy, the scientist must be open to evidence contradicting the hypothesis. The hypothesis must be modified based upon evidence discovered, up to and including discarding the entire thing.

I'm not sure there's even a disconnect with this guy. From what I can tell about his hypothesis, he thinks the sediment layers in the Grand Canyon were deposited rapidly, then the canyon was carved out rapidly. He's looking at some of the bent layers to see if there's evidence they had to be soft when they were all bent in unison.

If he is able to prove they were soft, it would be pretty conclusive evidence that the whole area was deposited by a massive flooding. On the other hand, if there's no proof of soft bending, or if the evidence shows they could have bent after hardening, it doesn't automatically disprove his idea rapid deposition.

So he isn't claiming to throw out evidence if it doesn't fit his hypothesis. He's claiming that lack of a positive outcome doesn't automatically disprove it.

It seems like there is a term for this kind of one directional evidence which I can't seem to think of right now.

While I don't agree with this guys interpretation of earths geology, I am also not afraid of opposing viewpoints. Let the guy do his study. There is clearly plenty of information to refute his theory.

I think this has been covered several times already (Including by me - not to mention the actual article) but what he wants to do will damage a national park. There are rules in place to weigh the scientific value of a proposal like this against the damage it will cause. This proposal failed that test. Again... are we supposed to just let anyone do anything to a sensitive nationally owned site because you are not afraid of the opposing viewpoint? Again... this has nothing to do with opposing viewpoint and everything to do with his proposal not having scientific merit.

Damage to a national park? Come on. It's not like there's thousands of kooks lined up trying to get these permits are there? If I'm wrong, let me know.

And why, in a case like this, is it important to swat down a guy with fringe ideas. He has scientific training. He has committed to publishing his results. I fail to see how the stakes here are so high that it's best to cut off access to these rocks just because of his fringe ideas. It seems like it is all because of the particular group he is associated with and the particular ideas he advances. If you feel it doesn't have scientific merit, fine. Seems like in this case, it would be much better to let him do his thing and let his bad science be put out there for the public to be able to see for themselves rather than take a course that may feed the notion that the scientific community is closed off to ideas outside the mainstream.

This is really getting old. There are laws and regulations governing this sort of thing. If you don't like them write your congressman. And it isn't me that doesn't "feel it doesn't have scientific merit." I'm not a geologist - I have no idea. But as the article states, the national park people, per their procedure under the relevant laws and regulations, did consult experts who said that this guy's proposal lacked merit.

While I don't agree with this guys interpretation of earths geology, I am also not afraid of opposing viewpoints. Let the guy do his study. There is clearly plenty of information to refute his theory.

I think this has been covered several times already (Including by me - not to mention the actual article) but what he wants to do will damage a national park. There are rules in place to weigh the scientific value of a proposal like this against the damage it will cause. This proposal failed that test. Again... are we supposed to just let anyone do anything to a sensitive nationally owned site because you are not afraid of the opposing viewpoint? Again... this has nothing to do with opposing viewpoint and everything to do with his proposal not having scientific merit.

Damage to a national park? Come on. It's not like there's thousands of kooks lined up trying to get these permits are there? If I'm wrong, let me know.

And why, in a case like this, is it important to swat down a guy with fringe ideas. He has scientific training. He has committed to publishing his results. I fail to see how the stakes here are so high that it's best to cut off access to these rocks just because of his fringe ideas. It seems like it is all because of the particular group he is associated with and the particular ideas he advances. If you feel it doesn't have scientific merit, fine. Seems like in this case, it would be much better to let him do his thing and let his bad science be put out there for the public to be able to see for themselves rather than take a course that may feed the notion that the scientific community is closed off to ideas outside the mainstream.

This is really getting old. There are laws and regulations governing this sort of thing. If you don't like them write your congressman. And it isn't me that doesn't "feel it doesn't have scientific merit." I'm not a geologist - I have no idea. But as the article states, the national park people, per their procedure under the relevant laws and regulations, did consult experts who said that this guy's proposal lacked merit.

Which is exactly what his lawsuit was about: whether the officials (or the experts) were following the rules or creating a false excuse because of his religious views. So without a court ruling all we can do is speculate whether the park gave in because they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on, or whether they gave in because they felt it wasn't worth their effort.

While I don't agree with this guys interpretation of earths geology, I am also not afraid of opposing viewpoints. Let the guy do his study. There is clearly plenty of information to refute his theory.

I think this has been covered several times already (Including by me - not to mention the actual article) but what he wants to do will damage a national park. There are rules in place to weigh the scientific value of a proposal like this against the damage it will cause. This proposal failed that test. Again... are we supposed to just let anyone do anything to a sensitive nationally owned site because you are not afraid of the opposing viewpoint? Again... this has nothing to do with opposing viewpoint and everything to do with his proposal not having scientific merit.

Damage to a national park? Come on. It's not like there's thousands of kooks lined up trying to get these permits are there? If I'm wrong, let me know.

And why, in a case like this, is it important to swat down a guy with fringe ideas. He has scientific training. He has committed to publishing his results. I fail to see how the stakes here are so high that it's best to cut off access to these rocks just because of his fringe ideas. It seems like it is all because of the particular group he is associated with and the particular ideas he advances. If you feel it doesn't have scientific merit, fine. Seems like in this case, it would be much better to let him do his thing and let his bad science be put out there for the public to be able to see for themselves rather than take a course that may feed the notion that the scientific community is closed off to ideas outside the mainstream.

This is really getting old. There are laws and regulations governing this sort of thing. If you don't like them write your congressman. And it isn't me that doesn't "feel it doesn't have scientific merit." I'm not a geologist - I have no idea. But as the article states, the national park people, per their procedure under the relevant laws and regulations, did consult experts who said that this guy's proposal lacked merit.

Which is exactly what his lawsuit was about: whether the officials (or the experts) were following the rules or creating a false excuse because of his religious views. So without a court ruling all we can do is speculate whether the park gave in because they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on, or whether they gave in because they felt it wasn't worth their effort.

This is completely non-sequitur to the post I am replying to.

But... Creating false excuses like "One reviewer, the University of New Mexico’s Karl Karlstrom, pointed out that examples of soft-sediment deformation can be found all over the place, so Snelling didn’t need to collect rock from a national park" ? (from the article you are commenting on but seem not to have read.)

So, how long are these people going to get away with saying Earth is 6000 years old? For as long as I can recall that's the number (seemingly pulled out of a hat), and it hasn't changed with time.

Well, nowadays we have people like Kyrie Irving (and Shaq and Draymond Green who agree with him) who, despite graduating highschool and getting into college, believe the Earth is flat.It's only going to get worse..

And why, in a case like this, is it important to swat down a guy with fringe ideas. He has scientific training. He has committed to publishing his results. I fail to see how the stakes here are so high that it's best to cut off access to these rocks just because of his fringe ideas.

Nobody is free to take rocks, let alone to carve out pieces of the walls of the Grand Canyon, just because they want to. There are conditions under which it's permitted, including having a valid scientific aim. Snelling doesn't have one, and given his lack of legitimate research output for 27 years speaks to an inability to produce material of a genuine scientific nature.

It's not "smacking down the guy with fringe views." It's that his project doesn't measure up to the bar set for taking samples that everyone else has to clear. He's asking for special exemptions basically because he'll sue if he doesn't get them.

Quote:

It seems like it is all because of the particular group he is associated with and the particular ideas he advances.

It's because he has a long track record of pseudoscience. Now we're supposed to believe he can conduct actual science? You might as well grant Kevin Trudeau a permit to conduct a medical trial of a new weight loss drug on the basis that he's fringe so we don't want to seem biased.

Quote:

If you feel it doesn't have scientific merit, fine.

That's exactly it. Furthermore, nobody here has any confidence that Snelling can still conduct a study of scientific merit.

Believe it or not, there comes a point where it's only reasonable not to grant somebody the benefit of the doubt anymore based on their history.

Having just re-read your comment, I'm now thinking you were referring to the commitment to publish results--that we can't trust this guy to follow through on that.

I trust him to publish something from all this. I don't trust it to be science so much as to cosplay it. It will add no value to our body of knowledge.

Quote:

If there is an objective way to consider that in the review process (i.e. somebody with a history of running afoul of certain ethical rules or whatever), then I can certainly support denying the permit on that basis.

Snelling stopped publishing in legit journals back in 1990. Ever since he's been heading and publishing in the Creationist cargo cult "journals" of his anti-science organization. That's a pretty flagrant history of running afoul of the scientific method. And yes, this was mentioned in the article.

While I don't agree with this guys interpretation of earths geology, I am also not afraid of opposing viewpoints. Let the guy do his study. There is clearly plenty of information to refute his theory.

I think this has been covered several times already (Including by me - not to mention the actual article) but what he wants to do will damage a national park. There are rules in place to weigh the scientific value of a proposal like this against the damage it will cause. This proposal failed that test. Again... are we supposed to just let anyone do anything to a sensitive nationally owned site because you are not afraid of the opposing viewpoint? Again... this has nothing to do with opposing viewpoint and everything to do with his proposal not having scientific merit.

Damage to a national park? Come on. It's not like there's thousands of kooks lined up trying to get these permits are there? If I'm wrong, let me know.

And why, in a case like this, is it important to swat down a guy with fringe ideas. He has scientific training. He has committed to publishing his results. I fail to see how the stakes here are so high that it's best to cut off access to these rocks just because of his fringe ideas. It seems like it is all because of the particular group he is associated with and the particular ideas he advances. If you feel it doesn't have scientific merit, fine. Seems like in this case, it would be much better to let him do his thing and let his bad science be put out there for the public to be able to see for themselves rather than take a course that may feed the notion that the scientific community is closed off to ideas outside the mainstream.

This is really getting old. There are laws and regulations governing this sort of thing. If you don't like them write your congressman. And it isn't me that doesn't "feel it doesn't have scientific merit." I'm not a geologist - I have no idea. But as the article states, the national park people, per their procedure under the relevant laws and regulations, did consult experts who said that this guy's proposal lacked merit.

Which is exactly what his lawsuit was about: whether the officials (or the experts) were following the rules or creating a false excuse because of his religious views. So without a court ruling all we can do is speculate whether the park gave in because they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on, or whether they gave in because they felt it wasn't worth their effort.

This is completely non-sequitur to the post I am replying to.

But... Creating false excuses like "One reviewer, the University of New Mexico’s Karl Karlstrom, pointed out that examples of soft-sediment deformation can be found all over the place, so Snelling didn’t need to collect rock from a national park" ? (from the article you are commenting on but seem not to have read.)

edit: added quote.

Ok. Well if we think about it from his main goal. Snelling is proposing that the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited rapidly during the flood. The park's official stance is that they were deposited gradually over millions of years.

Where is the best place to collect samples if you wanted to test that idea? If he can find convincing proof that the layers were all soft at the same time, then standing in the park and pointing directly to the relative areas is much better than saying some spot 100 miles away shows (results) so it must be the same here. It's much higher profile if you can do it with the actual canyon.

This is how I understand it: God created the dry land, then He created the types of plants, but no rain or man had watered the ground, so God caused a mist to water the ground, God then planted every plant and caused them to grow to maturity on day 3.

Genesis 1 says clearly that the Earth brought forth every plant and there was flowering and seeds before God made Adam. Genesis 2 says quite explicitly there was no greenery on the Earth before God mad Adam. They can't both be true.

Genesis 2 states that there was no rain nor man to water the earth, so God caused a mist to water it. Genesis 2 does not state that man was the one who watered the whole Earth.

Just as an FYI, I love this image and am shamelessly "borrowing" it to use in the future!

In everything that I can test the Bible, I have found it to be accurate. Believing in the Bible is not a base assumption for me at least. I have read stories of creationists who became convinced the Bible is true after seeing how it better fitted with the facts, so your accusation is false for them as well.

But by the tenets of your own creation institute, the bible CANNOT be tested; it is assumed, ab initio, to be absolutely true and unassailable, and is not subject to questioning or investigation.

So obviously none of them ever read 'Misquoting Jesus - the story of who changed the Bible and why' - Bart D Ehrman or explained the 200+ 'versions' of the Bible out there. The only want to accept KJV version the English king commissioned to have it come out the way he wanted it to. He was after all paying for it, no conflict there.

In everything that I can test the Bible, I have found it to be accurate. Believing in the Bible is not a base assumption for me at least. I have read stories of creationists who became convinced the Bible is true after seeing how it better fitted with the facts, so your accusation is false for them as well.

But by the tenets of your own creation institute, the bible CANNOT be tested; it is assumed, ab initio, to be absolutely true and unassailable, and is not subject to questioning or investigation.

So obviously none of them ever read 'Misquoting Jesus - the story of who changed the Bible and why' - Bart D Ehrman or explained the 200+ 'versions' of the Bible out there. The only want to accept KJV version the English king commissioned to have it come out the way he wanted it to. He was after all paying for it, no conflict there.

We English probably didn't change it too much - just corrected the spelling, like putting a 'u' in colour

Ok. Well if we think about it from his main goal. Snelling is proposing that the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited rapidly during the flood. The park's official stance is that they were deposited gradually over millions of years.

Where is the best place to collect samples if you wanted to test that idea?

The thing is, the idea has already been tested by ALL of the previous studies of the Grand Canyon. Not a single one is compatible with the idea of a rapid formation event. There is no room left for the YEC line even without Snelling's "research." It is ruled out as certainly as anything can be ruled out in science by the complete and overwhelming evidence of gradual formation already in hand. It's difficult to point at any one fact about the Grand Canyon's geology which rules out a catastrophic flood because damn near every fact about it does so. However, a broad overview of the problems faced by YECs is given here. This literally doesn't scratch the surface but is more than enough to definitively reject the "young Grand Canyon" argument. In science, being wrong is alright as long as you're wrong in a useful way that we can learn from. Creationism is worse than that, it's "not even wrong" to the point of being useless. Snelling's sampling proposal manages to be even worse than useless, because it's nothing but a stunt abusing our system to gain special privileges.

Quote:

If he can find convincing proof that the layers were all soft at the same time...

Then all of physics and chemistry would be instantly wrong, including gravity and thermodynamics. I'm not exaggerating. Gravity and thermodynamics are an integral part of the formation of the Grand Canyon as it exists. And if all of physics and chemistry were wrong, upon what framework would Snelling be hanging his experimental design?

This article commits the exact infraction you are accusing Snelling of doing. Declaring something a fact with a preconceived conclusion.

Gladly :-)

Here is the statement:

Quote:

"Young-Earth creationist groups like Answers in Genesis believe the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old despite actual mountains of evidence to the contrary,..."

preconceived conclusion:

Quote:

"A long geologic record (spanning almost 2 billion years, in total) is on display in the layers of the Grand Canyon"

The hypothesis is challenging precisely this assumption that it took 2 B yrs to form. The subject of the article is focused on this disputed idea and yet the author simply takes it as fact and ignores the challenge.

In my previous post i referenced that there is an example with similar strata formations which were formed rapidly. The formation process was observed by the modern scientific community and can be visited by the general public today. (Mt St Helen )

I get it. Many don't trust this guy. I don't object to the complaints that many religious people have falsely messed around with science over the years. That said, the non-religious scientists risk the same fate if they too take the approach of the author of this article.

The hypothesis is challenging precisely this assumption that it took 2 B yrs to form. The subject of the article is focused on this disputed idea and yet the author simply takes it as fact and ignores the challenge.

No. Actually, previous research has determined it is over 4.5 billion years old.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for him to call his lawyer on his cell phone proves the Earth is older than a few thousand years.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for him to send emails back and forth to govt officials proves that the Earth is older than a few thousand years.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for nuclear power plants around the world to operate, and obtain uranium from Snelling's own country, prove the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for the X-Ray and CAT Scan machines that at least someone he knows have needed for tests, prove that thr Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

He can believe in whatever religion he wants, but don't lie and call what he is doing "science."

Elaborate on those theories please.

I should really know better than to get sucked back into this.

Cell phones require radio frequency (RF) technologies to work. RF is a form of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF), and EMF travels at the speed of light. We can use that same technology to measure how far away things are. We use that technology to measure how far stars are using RF telescopes. Knowing how far away a star is, divided by how fast light travels tells us how old the star is. Principles of RF theory are used in every wireless communications device you own.

In order to see what was on a computer you need a monitor and at some point CRT screens were a big deal. These involve using electron guns to excite electrons and shoot them at phospors to create different colors,(Bear with me, I am simplyfing this quite a bit). This same theory is used again in RF in the form of klystons which also operate using an electron gun. Klystons are used in microeave and satellite communications, which again use RF technology. See previous paragraph.

Nuclear power is very complicated, but one important concept is radioactive half life, in the simplest terms, how long it takes half the atoms of a known radioactive substance to decay or transmute into another element. This is important because it is the basis of carbon dating which uses a certain isotope of the element carbon to determine how old things are. In this case the uranium that is exported from AUS has a half life of roughly 4.4 billion years.

CT scans and MRIs use X-Rays in order to produce images doctors and technicians use to diagnose patients. X-rays are a form of EMF, see above.

Awesome. Your article contends that the previous theories of the GC being 6 billion years old may be wrong and it could be 70 Billion years old. Proving my point... these are theories that continue to change as new research is applied. All of these theories on age assume that the rate of change that we observe today is constant and cannot be faster or slower.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for him to call his lawyer on his cell phone proves the Earth is older than a few thousand years.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for him to send emails back and forth to govt officials proves that the Earth is older than a few thousand years.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for nuclear power plants around the world to operate, and obtain uranium from Snelling's own country, prove the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

The theory required to produce the technology needed for the X-Ray and CAT Scan machines that at least someone he knows have needed for tests, prove that thr Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

He can believe in whatever religion he wants, but don't lie and call what he is doing "science."

Elaborate on those theories please.

I should really know better than to get sucked back into this.

Cell phones require radio frequency (RF) technologies to work. RF is a form of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF), and EMF travels at the speed of light. We can use that same technology to measure how far away things are. We use that technology to measure how far stars are using RF telescopes. Knowing how far away a star is, divided by how fast light travels tells us how old the star is. Principles of RF theory are used in every wireless communications device you own.

In order to see what was on a computer you need a monitor and at some point CRT screens were a big deal. These involve using electron guns to excite electrons and shoot them at phospors to create different colors,(Bear with me, I am simplyfing this quite a bit). This same theory is used again in RF in the form of klystons which also operate using an electron gun. Klystons are used in microeave and satellite communications, which again use RF technology. See previous paragraph.

Nuclear power is very complicated, but one important concept is radioactive half life, in the simplest terms, how long it takes half the atoms of a known radioactive substance to decay or transmute into another element. This is important because it is the basis of carbon dating which uses a certain isotope of the element carbon to determine how old things are. In this case the uranium that is exported from AUS has a half life of roughly 4.4 billion years.

CT scans and MRIs use X-Rays in order to produce images doctors and technicians use to diagnose patients. X-rays are a form of EMF, see above.

Measuring the distance of stars... isn't the universe expanding? How can we be certain that the speed of expansion is consistent or could it be accelerating / decelerating?

Carbon dating: do we know why uranium has a half life of 4.4Billion years? We are only able to observe it for a few hundred years. Could there be factors that alter the half life rate?